Pro Hac Admission No Cure For Administratively Suspended Attorney

An attorney admitted to practice in Missouri and Kansas allowed his active license in Kansas to lapse. 

His subsequent participation in two Kansas matters was deemed to constitute unauthorized practice notwithstanding his pro hac vice admission in both cases.

More important than respondent’s stipulation, clear and convincing evidence shows that his conduct violates the plain language of the two rules—i.e., practicing law while on a suspended license constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. In 1990, respondent went on inactive status in Kansas and then, in 1996, failed to pay the inactive fee. Due to his failure to pay the fee, this court ordered an administrative suspension of his license. In 2003 and 2009, respondent called the office of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts to learn what steps he could take to reinstate his license. But he failed to complete the necessary steps. Respondent’s administrative suspension qualifies as a suspension for Rule 218(c)(1) purposes. See In re Thompson, 301 Kan. 428, 433, 343 P.3d 108 (2015) (an administrative suspension was sufficient to constitute a violation of Kansas Supreme Court Rule 218 for failure to notify clients, opposing counsel, and the courts of a suspension).

Respondent claims that despite his administrative suspension, he did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law because he was authorized through his pro hac vice admissions. In 2012, respondent submitted two applications to appear pro hac vice on behalf of two separate clients. On both applications, he failed to list his Kansas bar admittance, inform the court his license to practice law in Kansas was not in good standing, or inform the court his license in Kansas was on administrative suspension. Subsequently, respondent was admitted pro hac vice in both cases.

The panel merely found respondent’s pro hac vice admission invalid: “Respondent obtained admission pro hac vice improperly as the respondent was not eligible for admission pro hac vice.” The Disciplinary Administrator correctly points out that, under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 116 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 222), only out-of-state attorneys who are not admitted to practice in Kansas are eligible for pro hac vice admission. That rule states: “An attorney not admitted to practice law in Kansas may be admitted on motion to practice law in a Kansas court or administrative tribunal—for a particular case only[.]” In the instant case, respondent was admitted to practice law in Kansas and therefore could not be admitted pro hac vice.

The Kansas Supreme Court imposed a 60-day suspension for the misconduct.

Respondent’s violations and the record both reveal he acted with knowledge. But respondent argues he was acting negligently when he applied for pro hac vice status. He contends at the time of his application he believed he was not suspended in Kansas, but simply on inactive status. This argument fails for two reasons.

First, the record indicates that respondent had actual knowledge of his suspension. Twice he received letters from this court specifically informing him of his suspension and the procedure for reinstating his license. And twice he called the court’s clerk to inquire how to reactivate his license. Even with this knowledge, he still submitted two pro hac vice admissions where he failed to include his Kansas suspension, as required by the application.

Second, the argument that he negligently believed he was inactive in Kansas does not explain his failure to include his Kansas bar admission on the verified application for pro hac vice admission. The application required respondent to list all “[b]ars to which the applicant is admitted, the dates of admission, and the applicable attorney registration number(s).” Even if respondent had acted under the belief he was simply on inactive status, he was still a lawyer admitted to the Kansas bar and listed as such with the Office of Attorney Registration…

Considering both the panel’s findings and our legal conclusions, a majority of the court holds that respondent is to be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas for a period of 60 days. A minority of this court would impose a greater sanction.

Video of oral argument is linked here. (Mike Frisch)